ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. These Tax Appeals are filed under section 260A of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (For short “the Act”) arising out of common judgment and order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench, Ahmedabad (For short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.242/AHD/2020 and ITA No.283/AHD/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 and Assessment Year 2016-2017 respectively with following proposed substantial question of law: “For AY 2015-2016: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of marked to market loss of Rs. 51,29,56,469/- in respect of currency derivative contracts without considering that M to M loss is a notional loss and contingent in nature? For AY 2016-2017: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in deleting the disallowance of marked to market loss of Rs. Rs. 25,45,18,097/- in respect of currency derivative contracts without considering that M to M loss is a notional loss and contingent in nature?” 2. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar who was permitted to file appearance for the respondent vide order dated 25.09.2023. 3. Issue involved is identical in both the Tax Appeals. Brief facts of Tax Appeal No.610 of 2023 are that the assessee had filed its return of income on 29.11.2025 by declaring total loss at Rs. 17,47,62,10,823/-. 4. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 22.12.2017 declaring total loss at Rs.16,55,70,97,680/- after making addition on account of disallowance of SWAP contract loss of Rs. 91,91,13,146/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who vide order dated 08.01.2020 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved with the decision of the CIT(Appeals), the appellant Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by common impugned order dated 30.11.2022 rejected the appeals of the Revenue. 7. Being aggrieved by the common impugned order, the appellant Revenue has preferred these Tax Appeals. 8. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held as under: “9. 6. Being aggrieved with the decision of the CIT(Appeals), the appellant Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by common impugned order dated 30.11.2022 rejected the appeals of the Revenue. 7. Being aggrieved by the common impugned order, the appellant Revenue has preferred these Tax Appeals. 8. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held as under: “9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that identical issue came up before this tribunal in case of sister concern of the assessee namely Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Pvt. Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 1470/AHD/2018 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant finding of the bench is extracted as under:…. xxx 9.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the decision of Tribunal as discussed above has been set aside / stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing feature in the facts & circumstances of the case of the assessee and fact & circumstances in case of sister concern nor has placed any contrary binding decision in its support. Thus, respectfully following the order this tribunal in the case as discussed above, we uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.” 9. At the outset learned advocates for both the sides submitted that the issue arising in these tax appeals is squarely covered by decision of this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. Suzlon Energy Limited (Order dated 20.02.2018 passed in Tax Appeal No.1000/2017) wherein this Court has held the issues raised in favour of the assessee and against the respondent as under: “1. Draft amendment is allowed. 2. Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial questions of law: “A. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on duty draw back of Rs. 18,01,67,542/-? B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act of Rs. 28,54,26,054/- on interest income on FDI/ICD? 18,01,67,542/-? B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act of Rs. 28,54,26,054/- on interest income on FDI/ICD? C. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of upward adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on account of guarantee fee on loans availed by AEs of Assessee against guarantee of Assessee?” 3. Revenue has proposed following three additional questions: “1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 22,15,55,371/- being national loss on outstanding forex derivatives contracts as on 31.03.2009? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Act of Rs. 2,18,97,496/- on interest income received from debtors? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting of tax credit of Rs. 1,62,26,344/- & Rs. 1,05,43,697/- in respect of royalty income not claimed in original return of income nor claimed in revised return of income?” 4. These questions are however not considered for the following reasons: The decision of the Tribunal with respect to question No.1 is in conformity with the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Government India P. Ltd reported in (2009) 312 ITR 85 (SC). Sofar as question 2 is concerned, the Tribunal has correctly followed the decision of this Court in case of Nirma Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2006) 284 ITR 401 Guj. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, the Tribunal referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in case of Goetz (India) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) to entertain additional contention. Reference in this respect can be made by this Court in the decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mitesh Implex reported in (2006) 367 ITR 85 (Guj). 5. These three questions are therefore not entertained. 6. To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 999 of 2017.” 10. It was further submitted that the decision of this Court is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP(C) No.1422/2019 vide order dated 17.01.2020. 11. 5. These three questions are therefore not entertained. 6. To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 999 of 2017.” 10. It was further submitted that the decision of this Court is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing SLP(C) No.1422/2019 vide order dated 17.01.2020. 11. The issue arising in these appeals is no more res integra as held by this Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suzlon Energy Limited (Order dated June 27,2018 passed in Tax Appeal No.667 of 2018) wherein it is held as under : “1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench D, Ahmedabad dated 22.12.2017 in ITA No.2179/AHD/2013 for AY 200910, the Revenue has preferred present appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law. "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of notional loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,26,42,63,740/ claimed on account of Mark to Market basis ? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting upward adjustment of Rs.14,91,87,270/ made on account interest charged on the loans granted to the Associated Enterprises, at discounted rate to the prevailing Market rate ? C.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the fresh claim of the assessee in respect of Revenue expenditures of Rs.5.06 Crores for issue of debenture of LIC of India when such claim was never made by Assessee in its return of income in contradiction to the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd 157 Taxman 1 ? D. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that disallowance under Section 14 A cannot be added to book profit while working out tax liability under the provisions of MAT as the said section has no applicability beyond chapter IV, while computing the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act ? E. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in remanding the issue of relief under Section 90 to the file of AO?" 2.0. Heard Shri Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue. 3.0. E. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in remanding the issue of relief under Section 90 to the file of AO?" 2.0. Heard Shri Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue. 3.0. So far as proposed question No.2(A) is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the case of very assessee in Tax Appeal No. 1000 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court has held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of very assessee in Tax Appeal No.1000 of 2017, present appeal qua proposed question no. 2(A) is hereby dismissed. 3.0. Now, so far as proposed question nos. 2 (C) and (E) are concerned, it is required to be noted that as such learned Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the AO to consider the said claim. The only grievance on behalf of the Revenue is that without filing revised return, the same ought not to have been permitted. However, the said issue is concluded against the Revenue in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Woodward Government India P. Ltd reported in (2009) 312 ITR 85 (SC). Under the circumstances, present appeal qua proposed question nos. 2(C) and 2 (E) is hereby dismissed. 4.0. Present Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law: B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting upward adjustment of Rs.14,91,87,270/ made on account interest charged on the loans granted to the Associated Enterprises, at discounted rate to the prevailing Market rate ? D. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that disallowance under Section 14 A cannot be added to book profit while working out tax liability under the provisions of MAT as the said section has no applicability beyond chapter IV, while computing the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act ? 5.0. To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos. 671 of 2018 & 666 of 2018. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also dismissed SLP No. 3382/2019 as under: “1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat by its judgment and order dated 27 June 2018 followed its earlier decision in Tax Appeal No 1000 of 2017. 5.0. To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos. 671 of 2018 & 666 of 2018. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also dismissed SLP No. 3382/2019 as under: “1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat by its judgment and order dated 27 June 2018 followed its earlier decision in Tax Appeal No 1000 of 2017. Following the earlier decision, the appeal was not entertained on the following question: “A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of notional loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,26,42,63,740/- claimed on account of Mark to Market basis” The judgment of the High Court dated 20 February 2018 in Tax Appeal No 1000 of 2017 has attained finality as a result of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this Court on 17 January 2020 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 v Suzlon Energy Limited SLP (C)No 1422 of 2019). 2. Consequently, in view of the above position and since the Special Leave Petition against the judgment which has been relied upon has been dismissed by this Court, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition on that ground.” 13. In view of above, we are of the opinion that no question of law much-less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Tax Appeals therefore being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed.